Need help

    Quote from Garrincha

    richaxes


    As far as Hifi goes you have a point with the 80s stuff being much more flat response. I remember I've heard some very good speaker with a fairly flat response and a good tansient reproduction back then. The Elac EL 150/160 series come to my mind or the I.Q. Trend (if I remember the names correctly, it's more than 20 years ago). The Hifi dudes had a term for that linear response, they called such a speaker "analytical". The stuff with the pimped bottom- and top-end was called "emotional". Seems the market went in the "emotional" direction from there ;)


    Back then I actually had fun listening to a good stereo. But in the last 15 years I've not come across a stereo (other than absolute high-end-stuff)that reproduces music remotely true to what we hear when we record and mix it.

    If you think about the fact how the Yamaha NS10 became became a studio monitor from originally being a hi-fi speaker, then it becomes clear that stereos were always meant to be FRFR, but they are just not (anymore).
    Christoph is right in this aspect, but that's only theoretical, in the practice real FRFRs will always sound "truer" and therefore - to some of us - better, than hi-fis.

    Use your ears, not your mathematical sense.

    I am trying to find out about the philosophy of FRFR.


    FRFR is a very misleading term in any case. It suggests to many people that these speakers have different characters and purposes than other regular and linear speakers.
    Nobody really knows where this word comes from. It is absolutely not used or even known in the entire audio world exept in the digital amp world.


    I think it was created to separate guitar cabs from the rest of the speakers. The latter was called FRFR. By that definition stereos are FRFR too, right?


    I like the terms "analytic" and "emotional". FRFRs tend to be analytic then, like studio monitors.


    Monitors are used to define the final sound of a recording. The recording will contain guitars too. The recording will later be consumed through many "emotional" stereos, so the guitar sound will "converted to emotional" too, and still should sound right.


    Is it a correct advice not to play the Profiler through your stereo, even if you are used to its sound?
    It should sound good anyway. At least as good as listening to your favorite record.
    If the profiler is put on a record and listened through the same stereo you should have similar results.

    Well, Christoph, I agree with you that the all terminology is missleading, but, as a matter of fact, if I play a CD through my Hi-Fi (Marantz PM4200 - ASW passive studio monitors) or through my PC with active studio monitors, the results are A LOT different. Heck, even between different brand of studio monitors the difference is sometime enormous! If they would be all FRFR it shouldn't be...

    "Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music" Serghei Rachmaninoff


    The difficulty with FRFR speakers IMO is to set your sound up in a way that it will sound good over a variety of speakers. If I have my tube amp I don't have to worry about that as much or lets say I give that responsibility to the FOH guy when hes placing the microphone.
    But with FRFR I might have a pair that has a boomy bass, so all my presets will end up with less bass and might sound thin on another soundsystem. Same goes the other way round.
    Thats one reason people try to find the most "guitar cab like" FRFR system I guess, since then they'd be more able to judge the sound objectivly.
    Another reason is that it's not the same feeling playing through a guitar cab or a FRFR. But using a poweramp and guitar cab for stage monitoring isn't always the best solution. At least in terms of sound variety.

    well the term FRFR is indeed a bit misleading, but is now a household name for the terminology between what setup you use for "digital"


    Speakers, well the FULL RANGE part, just relates to a speaker than can go outside the realms of speaker cab's i.e 5000hz - naturally this then has the additional tweeter that pushes the top end spectrum to 20000hz


    The Other aspect is the PowerAmp. - This meaning its setup just to project the sound in an uncolored way, full flat, neutral like a buffer almost.


    Of course, there are hugh variation within this so called FRFR situation, that one is never the same as the next. - its just used to describe a typical setup.


    Thats the way I see it all anwyay!.

    Quote from ckemper

    I am trying to find out about the philosophy of FRFR.


    I agree that this term is misleading but you have to keep in mind that guitarists are technically challenged. Being a guitarist as well as a keyboarder and engineer I think I'm save to say that ;) Some of my guitar playing friends don't even know about the limited frequency range of their guitar speakers and how much that is part of the sound. So the term FRFR is like hitting them with a hammer to make unmistakably clear that with a digital amp or anything with a cab sim they need something VERY different from their usual guitar cab. Yoiu could argue they could just plug into the PA and use their floor monitor but that is a concept not widely spread in the guitar world. We fiddle players want to hear the sound blowing in in our back from behind and we want the look of a wall full of tolex cabs with pinstripe grill cloth (or whatever look the style of the band commands...).


    So to bring it to a point:
    What I personally want is a cab that sounds like a pair of Genelecs/Adams/Geithains but looks like a Marshall 1960 cab and is tall enough to put the Kemper on top of it if I want to fiddle around with it during rehearsal or gig ;)


    Somthing like this would get my money and I really wonder why nobody builts a sexy looking cab that looks like a guitar cab but sounds like a monitor:
    [Blocked Image: http://s7.directupload.net/images/120802/temp/h58semox.jpg]

    You are right, Mr. Kemper, but don't forget that most of the people buying the KPA don't want it to sound like their stereo does, but instead like their original guitar amp / cab setup or studio setup does, OR the profiled amp/cab would in real life.
    The problem is that guitar tones will always sound the best through guitar speakers, which are a lot different when compared to FRFR or stereo speakers, and this is why - for the ears - even the best FRFR falls short against a guitar cab if you are used to listening to guitar cabs, what you will most likely be used to when playing guitar. The most traditional setup is still the amp/cab combination, and even a cheap and little practicing amp (I'll bring up my Roland Cube 30, a fantastic little piece of gear) will sound "more alive" in a sense than any great stereo or FRFR, just because of the guitar speaker in it.
    I've tried the KPA through a PA + guitar cab setup not so long ago, but I wasn't impressed with the tones that way, I still think that with the KPA, FRFR is a better choice, but to be perfectly honest, you will never get close to sounding like a real amp through a real cab in a real room - of course, it's always mentioned that the KPA produces mic'd amp tones, but I think that a fair amount of players are not used to hearing the mic'd PA system tone back, but hearing their amp at point blank range.

    Use your ears, not your mathematical sense.